Through scrutiny of academic research in the context of ethnic conflict, the present article advances the agenda of critical policy studies. To that end, it conducts a case study of representations of the Kurds in Turkish scholarship and aims to highlight a nexus between nationalism, state policy, and scholarship. Two arguments are advanced herein. First, Turkish scholars who adhere to the dominant nationalist ideology in Turkey represent the Kurds in accordance with the dictates of this ideology and justify sovereign power in the maintenance of relations of ethnic domination and subordination. Second, while Turkey no longer denies the physical existence of the Kurds, the state and Turkish scholars persist in withholding recognition of Kurdish identity. The scholars in question do so under pretenses of scientific objectivity, political universalism, and a commitment to peace. However, the lingering of the policy of denial and the justification of it constitute a fundamental hurdle to a peaceful resolution of the Kurdish issue. A critical approach to state policy and scholarship not only makes it possible to debunk pretenses of scientific objectivity and political universalism, but may also be more conducive to scholarly autonomy and commitment to peace in societies marked by ethnic conflict. 

This chapter aims to develop a theory for the purpose of explaining variation in political gains among stateless nations. It is limited to a study on the Kurds in Iran, and seeks to explain their gains in the past, as well why they are lagging behind compared to their fellow Kurds in the Middle East. Three arguments are advanced. First, variation in political gains reflects the distribution of power or, alternatively, the balance of power between ethnic groups within a state. Second, the historical record shows that opportunities for political gains for the Kurds in Iran (and in neighboring countries) arise during circumstances when the balance of power between the Kurds and the ruling state is upset. These pertain, respectively, to external intervention by great powers; internal upheaval or revolution; and sustained guerilla warfare facilitated by rivalries between regional states. Third, the current (im)balance of power between the Kurds and the Iranian state account for their disadvantageous position compared to their fellow Kurds. In the absence of a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Kurds, this situation is likely to remain unchanged in the foreseeable future.